DEBATE: Are Mormons Christians? LDS Apologist vs. Evangelical Christian | Jacob Hansen | Ep 1338

Are Mormons Christians? Do we believe in the same gospel? Today, I've got Mormon apologist Jacob Hansen on to debate this and so much more. You're going to love this lively debate and discussion on today's episode of Relatable.

This episode is brought to you by Cexie Cookies. Mother's Day is coming up. It's not always easy to find something that feels thoughtful, but I can tell you the mom in your life, your wife, your mom, your mother-in-law will love the cookies from Cexie Cookies, y'all. They are so good. Made with real ingredients. They've got incredible flavors. You've got to try this out. Go to cexi.kei.com. Use code alli for 15% off. cexi.com code alli.

>> Jacob, thanks so much for taking the time to join us. If you could just tell everyone who you are and what you do.

>> Yeah, my name is Jacob Hansen. I am a LDS podcaster. I have a uh YouTube channel called Thoughtful Faith where I talk about usually kind of worldview apologetics and I kind of compare the Latter-day Saint worldview with everything from atheism to Islam.

Well, I appreciate how willing you are to engage in conversation, especially with those that you disagree with. Not everyone of any background, of any faith, is really willing to do that. And so the fact that you're willing to come here and, you know, contend for what you believe or go on different podcasts to debate, I just really appreciate that and respect that a lot. Um, the goal today is for me to clarify what the LDS church teaches and what they actually believe. I've had people who have left the Mormon church on the podcast. And so I want to hear from you because you're still an adherent to um LDS beliefs. And I thought that you'd be a really good advocate for what you believe. So I just have some questions for you. And I want to go all the way back, if that's okay, to like some history. How did the LDS church originate?

>> So, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints originated in the 1820s and 30s. It was officially was founded in 1830 uh in New York uh by Joseph Smith who through a series of sort of miraculous events that he went through um brought about what we believe is a restoration of the original ecclesiastical sort of structure of Jesus Christ church on the earth. And so that's kind of where I mean it's a very long story.

>> But that is essentially where where the church came from. He was in the woods in upstate New York and he claims to have been met by God himself and told that the church all of the churches for 1800 years had been apostate. He he says that he prayed to God what church should I join and that God said look all the churches have become apostate. They're not teaching what they need to teach and revealed to him through golden tablets that he found and the angel Moroni led him to um that this is the new revelation from God. And is that correct?

>> in in in a in a sense? So so I would say that to to kind of give the the full story. Um so Joseph Smith was for around the age of 14. He was trying to decide which church he should join. And so he's looking and like many of us today you see various denominations and infighting and things like that. And so he was confused about it. And so what he did is he went and read in the Bible the epistle of James uh which says if any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally and uprath not. And so what Joseph did was he went and he prayed in a grove of trees. And what we believe is that he had a theophony a vision of of the Lord uh the father and the son appeared to him and they essentially told him that the original church of Jesus Christ was not in its fullness on the earth. Okay, which means that the uh and the way that I would understand that and the way that Latter-day Saints understand that isn't the belief that there were no believers between the time of Jesus Christ and 1820, right? Um I did an entire debate on this with uh with Joe Heshmire recently. Uh and it's the idea that the fullness of the ecclesiastical structure of Christ's church was not on the earth. But we do believe that there has always been since the time of Jesus sincere believers in Jesus Christ. So when we talk about the church, I think it's important that we distinguish between the church as a body of sincere believers which we believe believe has had a continual existence and the institution which we believe is necessary to govern those believers. The fullness of the institutional church and that is what we believe was was lost.

>> Okay. Um help me clarify. Is it just the ecclesia that needed to be restored? Just the structure of the church and the authority? My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, was that there was also a sense in Joseph Smith at least, that there needed to be a restoration of the gospel that there needed to be a new revelation and a new message from God because there are differing beliefs that we have about creation, about even what these kind of essential Christian doctrines and words actually mean. So there was a sense that no denomination or the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church had the fullness of the understanding of the gospel. Is that correct?

>> It is true in the sense that the fullness of the doctrine we believe had been there had been corruptions of the doctrine over time. For example, one of the main ones that Latter-day Saints believe is that the so we would consider ourselves, just so you know, we would consider ourselves Christians, but we will not consider ourselves creedal Christians. And by that I mean the different creeds that came out post in the post-biblical era.

>> Nine creed

>> the creed. The apostles creed actually is one that we would embrace. I don't think that there's anything in the apostles creed that we would have an issue with. But when it comes to and even the nyen creed to be honest 95% of it we would believe wholeheartedly. Uh the the area that we take issue with is the consubstantiality of Jesus Christ and the father. And so where the Latter-day Saint tradition

>> consubstantiality for people who don't know is that they are the same in substance and we can get into this later. We don't have to get into the trinity right now. But I've heard your positions before is that you don't believe the trinity as many as you would call creedle Christians do.

>> Yes. And that's yeah that would be the that would be the primary distinction. So what what we believe is is that once you have a a an understanding of God that distances his relationship to us because what the creeds essentially say is that there is this distinction between God and man that is an unbridgegable ontological gap between God and man. And Latter-day Saints believe that when Jesus Christ said that God is our father and his father, like we believe that that is quite very very much the case that we are the same species as it were as God.

>> Um and so what we believe is that what needed to be restored was a proper understanding of who God was and who man was in relationship to God. Now, as far as the gospel that needing to be restored, it depends what someone means by the gospel. You know, Latter-day Saints um in our um in our beliefs. I mean, Joseph Smith himself said that the fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ. That he died, was buried, rose again the third day, and ascended to heaven. and all other other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. So,

>> so my question is because that does sound so similar to what a Catholic or a Protestant would say is the gospel and many people in the 19th century I mean there had already been a great awakening and there was this unleashing of the gospel after the Protestant Reformation and into the Americas. People believed that gospel

>> and there were a lot of people preaching that gospel. Not just some people but a lot of people preaching the gospel. There were certainly Baptist churches who were preaching that. And so he says that he heard from God that the church though was basically apostate. Not that there were no believers, but that no one denomination got it right and that he was going to get it right because he had the revelation from God. But if it's essentially the same gospel, which is what he argued and what you're arguing, then by what definition was the church apostate?

>> So we would say that what was missing was the priesthood authority and keys that were given to Peter. So we believe in in a similar way to what Catholics believe that there were keys of authority that were given to Peter to effectuate the ordinances of salvation uh as as a means by which we make covenants with our father in heaven. And so you don't have the fullness of the church without the fullness of the priesthood that is necessary to govern that that institution. And we believe that was what needed to be restored. Now that is one aspect of the restoration. There also are other things um that we would say were restored as well as far as truth specifically mo probably the most important one is our understanding of who God is and who humanity is in relationship to God and our potential as human beings.

>> Yeah. And that's something I really want to get into because that's a really interesting distinction. So would an LDS person would you say that the church that I as you know a Baptist as a Protestant or Catholics we're still a part of the apostate church today? You would say that I don't have the fullness of truth that I don't understand the you know succession of apostolic authority that the Mormon church has.

>> What we would say we have a very different entire framework around all of this. Okay. The fullness of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we would say, or the fullness of the church of Jesus Christ is when you have both the body of sincere believers and the fullness of the institution that governs those believers. We would believe that you are a full sincere believer in Jesus Christ. And we believe that you can reach a potential of relationship with Jesus Christ through that sincere belief that you have. Indeed, we believe that you do.

>> What does that mean? That I could reach a potential of a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. So, so there is this is one of the the big differences maybe between the two positions that we have. So, there's sort of a binary heaven and hell. So, you would for instance look at a Latter-day Saint and say that you're not saved. If we follow sort of the LDS view that the eternity we have in store for us is hell. Um, we would actually say that because we have this many people have heard of this sort of a an idea of heaven more like a spectrum than a binary is a way to think of it. There's three celestial kingdoms and then there's hell, right?

>> What we would call it to to there's quite a bit to get into that, but there is what we would say is that there's outer darkness. Those are people who don't want any light at all. Those people who just reject the light.

>> Who qualifies?

>> Um, those who are um basically the way I've heard it put is that it's like someone who sees the sun and the light and like doesn't want it. It's like you have a perfect knowledge of God and you hate God all the same with a perfect knowledge of who he is.

>> Are there any concrete qualifications? Like I mean what qualifies someone is bad enough to go to outer darkness? Because the like my belief is that it's all non-Christians. You know, Acts 4:12 says there's no other name in heaven or earth by which one must be saved. Jesus says John 14:6, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me. And so it's like that's the distinction, but it doesn't sound like you're drawing the distinction between Christians or non-Christians, those who are in Christ and those who are out of Christ.

Next sponsor is WeHeart Nutrition. This is where I get all of my supplements, my prenatalss, my iron, my omega-3s, my magnesium, my probiotic. All of it is from WeHeart Nutrition. This is by far the best supplement company that I have ever used. I've tried all kinds of supplements, even uh natural brands, and none of them have really worked according to my blood work, but I started using uh WeHeart Nutrition at the beginning of 2024. It's been a game changer for all of my levels, for my health, for my immune system, my hair, skin, and nails. My favorite thing about them, though, is that they are a familyowned Christian, unapologetically pro-life company. They donate to pregnancy centers. They've donated over a million dollars to these life-saving pregnancy centers. Jacob and Kristen are the real deal. You have to buy Weheart Nutrition supplements. You will not regret it. Go to weheartnutrition.com. Use code ally. You'll get 20% off your order when you do. Nutrition.com. Code Ally.

You're talking about a level of bad that qualifies you to get sent to the outer darkness, but you don't have any examples of what that could be. I would say well when it comes to the specific examples like I don't judge individual people I leave that to God ultimately like I don't want to make a judgment call on who it is the person that goes to hell but the analogy that I would use is a person who has a full knowledge of God and doesn't want him maybe Judas we could use Judas as an example I think might might qualify as a son of predition um in our tradition but the idea here is is where maybe you look at me and think that Latter- Day Saint you're going to hell you're going to suffer in hell unless you change your ways I would day that uh or the way that that our our faith views things is that there are different levels of light that people are willing to accept, right? And the fullness of the light is to come into a full covenant relationship with Jesus Christ through his church through the ordinances that put you into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. So a person can have a a very deep and meaningful relationship with Jesus Christ and in the next life experience great joy and happiness maybe even the heaven that you kind of imagine it to be where what we would say is that um if you want a fullness to reach the fullness of your own potential that you would need to enter into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ because only through him can we reach the fullness of our potential.

>> Okay. Can you help me understand exactly what those ordinances are? Because I think you would agree like at least semantically you would say Jesus died for our sins and that his sacrifice on the cross paid for our sins so that we could be reconciled to God. I've heard those in the LDS church say that. And when I read that like I read Ephesians 2 for example, by grace through faith you have been saved and this is not your own doing is it is a gift of God not a result of works so that no one can boast. and that we were dead in sin. We were made alive in Christ and that we were reconciled to God. Right there we have the fullness of relationship with God. Not through any particular denomination or any particular tradition, but because of the belief that we have in Christ sacrifice. Like that was the fullness of everything that I needed to be qualified for a relationship with God and access to God. But it sounds like you're saying there's something else too that Christ sacrifice wasn't quite enough that you also need to enter into ordinances. your word to have the fullness of a relationship with God in heaven. So tell me what those ordinances are and why they have to be added to Jesus's sacrifice.

>> So I I'd start it like this. I I use this analogy to understand kind of the way that we would view salvation and and specifically where the ordinances kind of fit into that. Um, the first thing is I I would say that imagine that we're all in a car and this car is on a cliff and we being dumb teenagers decided to drive our car around the cliff and our parents told us not to. It's our fault and the brakes all of a sudden go out and our car is heading downhill towards the cliff. It's our fault. Like we're heading towards the cliff. There's nothing we can do to save ourselves. We're going to go off that cliff. And then Jesus shows up with a helicopter and he reaches his hand out and he says, "Take my hand and I'll get you out of this mess." Right? And now what we would say is that there involves a choice there. You have to choose Jesus Christ. You have to take his hand. And there's a question, well, what does that look like? What does it look like for us to accept the gift that Jesus would give to us? Because the other alternative is, and I know that certain Protestant models have this, it's that Jesus reaches into the car, he grabs certain people out of the car as his elect, and then he puts them in the helicopter, he flies away with them, and he leaves the other people to go off the cliff because he's sovereign, and it's like, well, he gets to pick who he wants to save, and the others get to go off the cliff. Our view is is different. Our view is is that we have to do something to reach up to take his hand. And what I would base that on is is um actually what happened at at uh at Pentecost. Um at Pentecost um in Acts two, Peter is is uh preaching to the people and they they feel the spirit of the Lord. Uh in verse 37 it says, "Now when they heard this, they were pricricked in their heart and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do?" So these are people that believe. They want to follow Jesus Christ. But now they're asking, "Well, what do we need to do?" And what Peter says, he says,"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." So our view is is that our repenting, being baptized, which is where we make this covenant with Christ, opens us up to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those who have authority. And then basically at that point, we are in a covenant relationship. We've taken his hand. And the only question is, are we going to hold on? Are we going to continue to place our faith in Jesus Christ and seek to follow him?

>> Okay. I have a couple things on that because I don't want to quibble about Arminianism versus Calvinism with you because I think our differences are a little bit bigger and more fundamental, but I will say yes. According to Ephesians 2, we are dead in the trespasses and sins in which we once walked. We follow the prince of the power of the air which is now at work in the sons of disobedience. That's what Ephesians 2 says, that we are spiritually dead. Dead people can't reach. Dead people can't clean themselves up. Dead people can't say, "Please God, help us." A dead person has to be revived. And so, yes, I do believe that we contribute nothing to our salvation. I just want to clarify my stance there. But my further question for you is what you've described. There are a lot of Armenians that would believe that maybe a lot of Protestants who would believe yes, there is part of a choice there that we reach up. But you haven't clarified for me is the or like what are the latterday saints ordinances that are required for us to have the fullness of their relationship with God because there are a lot of Christians who are not LDS who have done exactly what you said. They follow Christ. They were repented. They've baptized. They're filled with the Holy Spirit. But according to what you just said, they don't have the fullness of the ordinances. So they don't have a fullness of a relationship with God according to your theology. I think

>> well in our in our theology that that would have to be all of the ordinances have to be done through the through the priesthood. So I you know I can't

>> so what are the ordinances that is required for someone to have the fullness of their relationship with God according to Mormonism.

>> So first our article of faith or our fourth article of faith says the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are first faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Second, repentance. Third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. Like like Peter said. Fourth, the gift of uh fourth, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. I may have misqued a little bit there, but it's essentially that, right? So, these are the things that we do that bring us into a relationship with Jesus Christ. Now, these are what we would refer to as the ordinances of salvation. These are the things that basically get us out of this mess. Now, within the Christian world, there's sort of this notion of salvation versus sanctification, right? that sanctification is something that happens over time if I'm not mistaken or at least

>> some Christian world you're talking about my world.

>> Yeah. Well, well, I mean I'm when I'm talking about the Christian world, I'm I'm talking about the credle Christian world. Let's put it that way because I would consider myself a Christian just not a creedle Christian. And that's the way that Latter-day Saints tend to view themselves. So um so yes, I would say that that there this already is something within Christian thought that after someone has been saved that there is a process of sanctification that people go through throughout their lives to be made more perfect, right? To be to become what what what God wants them to be, right? And so we would have those we actually have ordinances and this is what our ordinances that are in the temple are about. They're sort of like the second half, right? And these are things such as um the uh endowment is something that we we have. Um we have the uh uh celestial marriage where people can be sealed to their families for eternity. And these are things that help us to reach the fullness of our of our potential in Christ is is the way we would view it.

>> Okay. So everything that you listed before like the five things that you must do to be saved are all things that happen in a Baptist church, but you're not Baptist. So like what is the distinction there? because according to you like I'm a Baptist and you know I've done all of those things and yet I I won't go to the fullness the highest celestial kingdom and have that relationship with God if I don't enter the LDS church.

>> So I would say that the the the the idea here is priesthood authority. It's that the the ordinances of the priesthood have to be administered by those who have the authority to then minister those.

>> Yeah. And that's LDS. That is something that the Lord always in his in his in his original church. It wasn't like you could go and just be baptized by by anyone. There were specific people. There's a reason, for example, that Jesus went to John the Baptist. And so there is an idea of an ecclesiastical structure that governs the covenants that people make with Jesus Christ. So it's not just people, you know, in a Protestant denomination that are like, "Hey, well, my Jesus allows for gay marriage and, you know, lesbian preachers." So, so it is there is a there's an idea and it's it's very similar to what Catholics have. Our our similarities with with Catholics are are very strong in the sense that we believe in an an ecclesiastical structure and priesthood that governs the ordinances that enable us to to uh enter into the fullness of of covenant relationship with Jesus Christ.

>> And what qualifies someone there are and please correct my vocabulary for I'm not saying this correctly. So there's three levels of heavens. There's the outer darkness. Sons of predition go there. We don't know who. Bad, really bad people. Whatever really bad, whatever really bad.

>> Let's say Judas.

>> Okay. I think that's a little that's confusing. We've got Mother's Day coming up. We also have Father's Day coming up. And either of those days is a great reason to go ahead and subscribe to Good Ranchers. If your husband is the one who grills in the family and really cares about the quality of meat, then this is a great gift for him. It's all American meat, all different cuts of steak. Chief related bro is so good at making steaks. And we love ours from Good Ranchers. Or if the related girl in your life is the one who is cooking and really cares about what kind of chicken you have, what kind of ground beef you have, the shrimp, the bacon, the seafood, and she wants to make sure that it's all American. Then you need to get your meat from Good Ranchers for Mother's Day. This is such a great and thoughtful gift, and it's really a gift for your whole family. It's all American, wide variety of meat, super high quality. It is what we rely on in the Stucky home almost every single night and have for 5 years. We love Good Ranchers. Go to good ranchers.com. Use code ally. You'll get $25 off your first order. Good ranchers.com. Code Alley.

Okay. So, there's three levels of heaven. What are most nonLDS people like? What are they going to go to? Who qualifies for what?

>> So we would generally say that that again I'm kind of generalizing here. Think of it in terms of light. We use an analogy of sun, moon and stars, right? So the stars have light but it's a lesser light than what one could could enjoy. The moon has a different level, okay, of light that a person could enjoy. And then the sun is kind of the fullness of of of light, right? And so what we would view is that the people in the lowest kingdom of glory are basically your normal kind of bad person. They just aren't people that that you know want to do what's right. Um, these are and they will only enjoy that which they are willing to receive. In the middle is sort of what we would call like the good people that but that aren't willing for one reason or another to embrace the fullness of Jesus Christ to accept his sacrifice into their life and enter into covenant relationship.

>> But they're kind of good.

>> What was that?

>> They're kind of good people. I would say well no I'd say that they might be very good people but just because you're a very good person doesn't mean that you've necessarily decided to accept your cross and bear what Jesus Christ wants to give you. Uh are the simplest way to put it is this you will get eternally what you really want and if you don't want Jesus Christ then you'll sell yourself short of your potential. And so we don't believe that God will take someone who's lived a good life as a Latter-day Saint, served their neighbors, raised a good family, and then internally torture them in in hell uh for that decision. We believe that they're going to be able to retain whoever they are, whether they're within our church or without, that they're going to be able to retain whatever light and goodness that they are willing to accept, God will give them. But there's a fullness and that fullness of light that a person will uh be enable to to enjoy it's all predicated on them and their willingness to follow Jesus because the path that Jesus is calling us to as you would know is not an easy path. And some people

>> has to go through the LDS church to get that fullness of light in eternity.

>> I wouldn't when you say it the church I would say it has to go through the the priesthood structure that Christ has organized on earth. Is there any other sect out there that has the priesthood ordinance?

>> The fullness of the priesthood? No.

>> Okay. So, it is just through the LDS church.

>> It would it would well it would be through the fullness of the priesthood that has been restored in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

>> The Baptists have that or Presbyterians or the Catholics?

>> No, those were churches ultimately that were not started fundamentally by God. They broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, started their own movements and basically denied even the need for priesthood structure and authority. And so these were churches that fundamentally were organized by by men.

>> But you don't believe that Catholics have their right apostolic succession either. See the Catholics and that was if my whole debate with Johes was about that is if they do uh I believe that the Catholic Church is the remnants of the original church along with the orthodox by the way who don't have the fullness of that authority because the apostolic authority that actually belonged to the original apostles wasn't passed on uh into those traditions. So that's

>> so someone does have to go through

>> LDS church in order to reach the highest level of heaven according to your theology.

>> To reach the fullness of their potential, they have to have a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. And that and to do that on earth requires that you make that covenant through the priesthood ordinance that only LDS church has right now.

>> Correct.

>> Okay. So yes, you have to go through the LDS church to get to the highest form of heaven. So, it's not enough for someone to believe by grace through faith in Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection for the forgiveness and remission of their sins and reconciliation to God. That's not quite enough to get you there. To have fullness of relationship with God, it's not that as scripture says, Jesus gives us boldness and access to uh confidently to go before the throne of God. That's not enough according to Mormon theology. It is also going through the Mormon church.

>> Well, I would say that those are necessary but not sufficient conditions because as Jesus said to Nicodemus, except a man be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of god. So we believe that ordinance at least at the at the very minimum uh Catholics would hold to this view as well that baptism is a is a necessary ordinance to enter the kingdom of god. God in our view is trying to organize

>> aren't going to the full kingdom of god according to your theology. That's because they that's simply because they don't have the fullness of the priesthood authority because they they don't have the

>> aposto for the formula because it's not just faith and baptism um and but it's also faith baptism the fullness of the ordinances which is only found in the LDS church. So that's what I want to understand is like the gospel or the plan of salvation according to the Mormon church. It's not just grace, faith is what I believe or Catholics believe. Grace, faith, baptism, but it is grace, faith, baptism plus going through the Mormon church.

>> You have to go through the priesthood. The priesthood authority has to be there. Christ very clearly in the in in the original church that was organized in the first century

>> had authorized people that were authorized to do certain things within that within that structure. there were apostles and prophets and there were various people that were ordained under their hand to administer the baptism uh for example to to the believers. So it it's if you believe in a kingdom of God that is actually organized as a kingdom, it will have the structure of a kingdom and that is largely what we believe has been restored to the earth. uh and it's it's in many ways very very similar to what what the Catholics have where they believe that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and they have that and they believe that because when you go back and you follow the apostolic tradition back that seems to be the sort of structure that existed in the early church. There was no anyone could just baptize anyone.

>> Well, I'm not a Catholic and so I could debate with Catholics about that, but I'm more interested in what you believe and why you believe it. So, I'm glad that we clarified that.

>> I would love to get down to what you referenced earlier like who God is in accordance with LDS theology and specifically who Jesus is because you Joseph Smith we have a lot of the same language but as far as I understand the origin story of Jesus is different within Christianity than in Mormonism. So, can you tell us the origin story of Jesus according to your theology?

So I would say that Jesus has uh Jesus is the only begotten of the father. Um and that means that in some sense he has his source and origin in the father. I would I would actually refer to um St. Basil put it interesting. He said since the son's origin is from the father in this respect the father is greater as cause and origin. This is why the lord says my father is greater than I. Indeed, what else does the word father signify unless being the cause and origin of that which is begotten of him. So in some sense, the father is the source and origin of the son. But within our theology, there isn't a lot of detail besides essentially the same kind of idea that that that someone like Basil has um that that the that the father is the he is the father of the son uh but the son is fully divine. So, the way I would make sense of this, and this is me, this is kind of there are certain things that Latter- Day Saints sort of have revealed and that are in our cannon of scripture. And then there's some things that we're doing theology just like anyone else does. Um, my personal take on it is that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit have always dwelt into eternity past in a fullness of loving relationship with one another,

>> but not as one. So, not a trinity.

>> Well, not as one in the sense that they are the same person or being.

>> Yeah. Well, we believe in three persons. one being um you know the eternal godhead but you do believe in three separate beings who are simply in communion with one another.

>> Correct. We but I would put it more that we believe that they are three persons who share one nature, right? That they that they all share the fullness of the divine nature just like we're two people but we have we both share the fullness of human nature. Like we are both fully human beings. Um, and so it doesn't make like I don't have any issue with the idea of two persons that share the same nature. But when people begin to say that you have two persons, me and you, but we share the same being. I have a hard time with that because it seems to me that what makes you your own person is to have your own being. So I I and I mean this I'm very open to being convinced of the trinitarian formulation of God. I genuinely don't know what people even mean when they say that you have two persons that share the same being. If I always thought that having your own being is what made you your own person.

>> How do you all interpret John 1? In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

>> So that's a lot of like prepositions there, but um yeah, like the word was God. And obviously we go on in the rest of John 1, we're introduced to Jesus at the beginning of John's gospel. So, how do y'all interpret that the word was God?

>> So, I would I would probably actually agree with Dr. James White, who I just recently had a debate with. He he had a discussion with Dale Tuggy or a debate and he said in John 1, you have and the word was God. What is being said is that the word as to his is as to his nature deity. The logos or Jesus has eternally been deity. So, if we break down the verse, it's in the beginning was the word, right? Jesus. So in the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God and we would say in that instance God is referring to the father. So it's in the beginning was the was Jesus and Jesus was with the father and the word was God. Now if we can't say in Jesus was the father because obviously that would be modalism and Jesus was fully divine. So the way I would look at John 1:1 to interpret it is in the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with the father and Jesus was fully divine. That is the way that I would and and I believe Latter- Day Saints would view that and we do believe that Jesus was fully divine.

>> I wonder why it doesn't say that.

>> Well, I I I would the word God can be used in different ways. So for example, if it was like I I guess I would want to understand how do you understand that verse if that isn't it? I'm I'm open to a different interpretation interpret when Jesus says I and the father are one.

>> Um in the same way that he does in John 17. Um in John 17 he explains in what way is one with the father and he says that uh he desires that his disciples will be one with him in the same way that he is one with the father. As you know in the bible it talks about um uh husband and wife right? They'll become one flesh. oneness can refer to a type of indwelling relationship between two totally separate individuals. And so I would see that it seems that in scripture that's the way that it's being used because you know, do you think that when Jesus invites his disciples to become one with him in the same way that he is one with the father? I mean I wouldn't think that that means that they're going to be the same being as Jesus. So you believe in community and communion in full agreement kind of co-workers working together not one as in he is part of the godhead. Just to clarify

>> I would say that it I don't understand what it means to say that they're as one as you can be while still being your own person. Um, if you and I are

>> Yeah. We do believe in three persons.

>> Yeah. One God.

>> In in what sense can three persons be one? I I just don't understand. The trinity is a bit mysterious and has been for a long time. Almost every single metaphor or analogy for the trinity falls apart because we end up kind of with uh with uh polytheism we end up creating these three divine beings which is not what we believe. Of course in the beginning like we read God say like the Lord your God is one. It's a monotheistic religion. And of course we read in Hebrews 13:8 that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Next sponsor is Every Life. The sad truth is that many of these major diaper companies are donating your dollars to Democrat politicians to pro-abortion causes. You would think that that's not the case. Unfortunately, it is. You don't want to have to worry about that when you're buying diapers and wipes. You want to trust that the diaper company that you use is prob baby and pro family. That's what you're going to get with Every Life. I don't know any other diaper company that can guarantee that that they're using your dollars to not only give you really good products to but to fight for families and to protect the unborn to donate to pregnancy centers. They're the real deal. We love Everyife diapers and pull-ups and wipes. Really good materials. They really were. I couldn't recommend them enough. Go to everylife.com. Use code alley10. Get 10% off your first order today. That's everylife.com. code alley 10.

I think according to the Mormon belief is that Jesus was actually conceived and and born, right? And that he was before he actually came to earth, before he was actually incarnate, Emmanuel, that he actually had kind of a human origin story and then attained that divinity. Is that correct?

>> I wouldn't hold to that view. Um there are some Latter- Day Saints who do. Um but there's nothing in our canon of scripture that suggests that. In fact, um the the idea in our canon of scripture, like in Doctrine in Covenants 20 uh 17, it says, "By these things we know that there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal from everlasting to everlasting; the same unchangeable God." So there is I mean you have to recognize just as there are discussions within Christianity about differing theology over the same cannon of scripture amongst latter-day saints you can get different different views but the idea that uh like for example the notion of spiritual birth is something that is uh you know it's it's widely discussed amongst Latter-day Saints but even amongst Christian there's a there's a challenge when you deal with Jesus Christ being begotten of the father. Like that's a that's a Christian teaching. Um and does so does that mean that Jesus ultimately has his like is his origin from the father? Like and what does what does that mean? So it isn't just a Latter-day Saint issue to sort of have to deal with who God or or or in what sense is Jesus begotten of the father. And so just as Christians have disagreements over that, Latter-day Saints are kind of all part of that same discussion. There seems to be a little bit of a different origin story though that both Jesus and Satan were created in eternity past or maybe you wouldn't use that phrase but they were created in their form a long time ago that Satan and Jesus were brothers that we also all of humankind are brothers and sisters of Satan and Jesus. Is that correct?

>> I would say that Jesus and Satan are brother and sister in the same way that you and Nancy Pelosi are sisters. like it's not in a meaningful sense. No. But if if as it says um if we are uh children of God, right? And if in the Bible it talks about this idea of um for example, the sons of God is something that it talks about in the Old Testament. For example, in Job 1, it says that the sons of God approached God and Satan was among them. Right? So, okay, Satan is one of the sons of God and Jesus is called the son of God. So, isn't there some sense in which there's some relationship there?

>> I'm not sure that that's what that means. You said the sons of God and Satan was among them. It doesn't necessarily say that Satan was a son of God. How do you square that with the origin story that we read in scripture that Satan was a fallen angel, that he was the day star, that he was the morning star? Jesus even says that he saw Satan fall like lightning from the sky. that he led, you know, his own army of rebellious angels who were demons in hell. And we don't read that he was this being that was a brother to Jesus.

>> Um, and so how how does Mormonism square that with what we read in scripture in Isaiah?

>> Well, angels, for example, you guys would view angels as a totally different species from human beings, as some totally different creature. We don't hold to that sort of view. We believe that angels are also uh the same species as as human beings. So

>> yeah, scripture says that angels long to see what we see. Um, that they long to know what we know. And so there does seem to be a distinction there.

>> There is a distinction absolutely in the sense that we are mortal and we're in this life and we're participating in the in the experience that we have.

>> Not well not currently. Perhaps they're pre-mbodied uh beings or they're they're post embodied beings that that are no longer embodied. Um, but we don't make this distinction between that there's all these different sort of species of creatures that are out there. We believe that we are all uh you know human beings, angels, uh e even God that these are that these are that we are all children of God is ultimately

>> even God. What do you mean?

>> So we believe here's the here's a real radical

Latter-day Saint doctrine. Um, it is that we are all, every single person, is a child of God. That you, Ally, have a spark of divinity within you, within your spirit.

>> Okay.

>> Um, and we would look at, for example, um, you know, in Acts 17, Paul is talking to the pagans and he says that God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth, uh, or to dwell on all the face of the earth. For we are also his *genos*. Do you know what the word *genos* means in Greek? Are you familiar with that?

>> Kind.

>> Exactly. Kind or type. So if we were to look at this, it says that we are also his kind or type. *Genos*. That's the word that Paul uses. Ephesians 4, he says, "There is one God who is the Father of all." Um, in, in Genesis, right? We're made in God's image and likeness, right? Everyone knows that. But, but what does that mean to be in God's image and likeness? Well, in Genesis 5:3, Adam has children. And it says, "When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness and in his own image." So when we look at this idea of image and likeness in the context of the book of Genesis itself, it's talking about a relationship like the relationship between a parent and a child, quite explicitly. And so when I look at the overall message of scripture, like Jesus, for example, in, in John 20, he says, "I ascend to my Father and your Father." If we both have the same Father, that would seem to be some sort of a sibling relationship. And he says, "And to my God and to your God." So when Jesus talks about his relationship to the Father and our relationship to the Father, he uses the same terminology, that of a Father. And so I'm not saying that these are these proven...

>> I'm kind of confused with what that means with Satan. Why, why does that make Satan Jesus's brother?

>> If Satan is one of the fallen angels, if he, if he's one of the angels are pre- or post-embodied beings. They are humans who ascended to,

>> angel-like status or,

>> or will be humans one day.

>> Yes, something like that. Something to that, that effect. I would say that there, there's nothing in the Bible that, that suggests that there is a different, that they are of a different *genos*. In fact, when we look at the explicit scriptures, it seems to say, I mean, Paul quite literally says that we are of, speaking of God, his *genos*. And so, I think that a lot of the post-biblical sort of tradition has come up with interpretations around scripture that create these sort of ontological gaps that I don't see in, in the Bible itself. How do you interpret John 4:4 when we read that God is spirit? Or like in 1 Timothy 1:17 when God is described as immortal and invisible? Or Colossians 1:17 that Jesus is the image of the invisible God?

>> Yeah. Well, one, I would say that I am spirit fundamentally. Like, I'm not, I'm not fundamentally my body. Um, so I would, I would, I would see that. And then number two,

>> I think that we would probably quibble over that, or not even quibble. I think that we would disagree with that, that you are body and spirit, that they are inextricably, maybe not inextricably, but they are intertwined, and that that is a key part of our identity. So again, I don't think that it's, kind of, you're kind of almost equating humans to God, or that we can ascend to godlike status. And is that a belief that the LDS church has?

>> Well, I would again, I would go back to the earliest Christians on that, on that subject. Um, Athanasius, for example, one of the early church fathers said that "God became man so that man might become God." Cyprian of Carthage says, "What man is, Christ was willing to be, so that man may also be what Christ is." Irenaeus said, "Our Lord Jesus Christ, through his transcendent love, became what we are, so that he might bring us to be even what he himself is." Um, there's also, now, the church, actually, are we get a lot of sort of caricatures around our doctrine of theosis. Um, and the church released a statement that said, and I thought they summed it up well. It said, "Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is that is no different than the biblical teaching in Romans 8:16-17, which states, 'The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together.'" And then it goes on to say, "Through following Christ." So I just finished the quote real quick. Just one last line. Uh, "Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become, as Peter, second Peter 1:4 says, 'partakers of the divine nature.'"

>> Okay. I don't really understand how Romans 8 there, which is a wonderful chapter, agrees with the assertion that we can ascend to godlike status. And you listed all of those church fathers. I have no problem, uh, disagreeing with church fathers. I would have to see the scripture to back up the idea. Yes, I agree with Romans 8 that we are heirs with Christ, that we have been bought with a price, which, by the way, I would say that Mormonism adds to that, that I'm not really a total heir with Christ because I haven't gone through, uh, the Mormon church, because I don't have all of the ordinances and the authority. So I would actually say that your doctrines deny that that is sufficient to be reconciled to God and to become a friend with God.

>> You're welcome to come and get baptized.

>> Yeah. See, that is the necessary thing. I've actually already been baptized, but I know that's not enough for the gospel that the, uh, Mormon church puts forth. 7 Weeks Coffee is America's pro-life coffee company. They're called 7 Weeks because at 7 weeks gestation, that little baby is the size of a coffee bean. Yet, he or she has the same value as you and me. Her rights matter. Her life matters. And that's why 7 Weeks Coffee donates 10% of every sale of their coffee to pregnancy centers across the country. They've already donated like, well over a million and a half dollars to these pregnancy centers, which has translated into so many resources for moms in crisis, which then, of course, translates into saving these baby lives. So, by allowing your coffee to serve a higher purpose, you are investing in eternity. And not to mention, you get great tasting, totally clean coffee. We enjoy it in our home. So, it's just a win-win all around. Subscribe. You'll save 15% when you do, and an extra 10% when you use my code, Ally. 7weekscoffee.com, code Ally. But this idea that we ascend to godlikeness, I don't actually see in scripture. Like, we get this gift of being reconciled to God. Our bodies will one day be resurrected. That's one thing. Why it's so important, I think, not to just say that we are spirit the way that God is described. God is described as spirit, but we're described as spirit and body. And there's a reason also why Jesus took on flesh. We read in John 1, "and dwelt among us." But in your belief, the Father is already flesh. So I am curious. I don't even have this written down, but what exactly is the incarnation according to the Mormon belief? Is that what we're celebrating at Christmas, for example? Like, if you already believe that God has a body?

>> Well, the incarnation of Jesus Christ is, is when he became fully mortal. That's where he, as Philippians says, emptied himself of the fullness of divinity to enter into, kind of, our world and our level. So if there's kind of different levels, right? If Christ was at that level into eternity past, he descended and came among us so that he could experience what we experience and show us the way, right? And, and what he's really doing, as, as we understand it, is he's teaching us how to love, right? So, what, what it's sort of like, I could write you a book all about how to love people, but it's very different if I were to come and walk hand-in-hand with you to someone who's suffering, and you watch me give that person a hug. You know what I mean? So our view is that Jesus Christ, uh, descended from the fullness of divinity, as Philippians 2 says. Uh, I believe it's Philippians 2. It's in Philippians. Um, and that is what we, we celebrate with, with the incarnation. It's that, you know, as, as it would say, God, God was among us.

>> And can we ascend to godlikeness?

>> Uh,

>> Can we become gods ourselves?

>> Uh, I would go with what the Bible says on that. It says, you know, in Revelation 3:2, it says, "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, I am set down with my Father in his throne." Um, now,

>> what, how does that mean that we have become gods?

>> It means that we have the full, we, we have, we, so I would use this example, if an acorn is of the same species as an oak tree, right? An oak tree, if you look at an oak tree and an acorn, you go, these things are totally different, but they're actually not. There's a potentiality to rise to the, to be, uh, to be as Athanasius said, to be as God is.

>> Where does it say that in the Bible?

>> Uh, well, I would, I could use some of these verses, um, for example, Psalm 82 says, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most high." Um, as I pointed out in Romans 8, that we're talked about as joint heirs with Jesus Christ. Revelation 2 talks about how we will sit in the throne. I mean, I, I'm, I'm curious and I'm open to an alternative explanation. Like, what do you think it means for us to sit down in the throne with Jesus?

>> Well, we do read that we have authority in Christ, that we are co-heirs with Christ, but also that we will spend eternity worshiping him. I don't think that we can conflate that to mean that we become gods. Because from the very beginning, God has declared that he is one, that there is no one like him. "Like me, there is no other." In Isaiah, he says, the prophet says to his people. And if that is true, if he says, "Like me, there is no other. There are no other gods before me. There are no other gods around me. I am the only one that exists." Gosh, he repeats that over and over again to his people throughout the Old Testament. And if that's the case, I just can't square that with the idea of, well, we also become gods.

>> Yeah. And I think actually, I would, I would line, there's a great Christian scholar, uh, Dr. Siguad, and he, he emphasized the scholarly consensus around the notion of God as held in the Old Testament and actually throughout the entire scripture. Um, he says, "I want to emphasize the scholarly consensus. Historians and biblical scholars, including Peter Haymon, Nathan McDonald, Paula Frederickson, Michael Heiser, Larry Hertata, and Richard Bachmann, among many others, argue that ancient Jewish monotheism was not a denial of other divine beings' existence, but rather an affirmation of Yahweh's unique supremacy. Christianity conceived of divinity as a spectrum rather than a binary. The key thing is that monotheism was not a numerical oneness, but a qualitative concept about the, about being the unique supreme deity amongst all other deities." So there is this notion in the Old Testament of a head god of all other gods. Latter-day Saints do not believe that I will, uh, surpass God the Father or something like that. You might talk about in terms of capital G God versus little g gods.

>> But equal stature, equal status, equal ontological, uh, level. But just, like, break that down for us.

>> Well, I would say that that it is, you could have the fullness of the divine nature, that you can have the fullness of divinity within you, but you will always have depended on that from your Father, from our Father in Heaven.

>> He's the source of divinity, but we can have the fullness of divinity through the Mormon church. Does that mean that there is the ability, I'm truly asking this out of just not knowing, does the Mormon theology teach that if you reach the fullness of divinity, you're in the highest celestial kingdom, that you have the same power that God has on earth?

>> So, this gets into a, a subject where a lot of people are like, "Oh, are you going to get your own planet or something like that?"

>> I haven't said that. I haven't said that.

>> I know you haven't, but I know that a lot of people think that. And I, I actually think that this is a very, uh, appropriate thing the church put out on this. They said, "Do Latter-day Saints believe they will get their own planet?" Says, "No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Latter-day Saints believe that we are all sons and daughters of God, and that allows us to have the same potential to grow during this life and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father." The church does not, and has never purported to, fully understand the specifics of Christ's statement that "in my Father's house there are many mansions." Um, C.S. Lewis famously said, people, you know, there are people that in *Mere Christianity*, one of my favorite books, um, he talks about people that, uh, kind of caricature heaven. They're like, "I don't want to go and spend, you know, eternity playing harps in heaven, right?" And he says, um, "There's no need to be worried about factitious people who try and make the Christian hope of heaven seem ridiculous by saying they don't want to spend eternity playing harps. The answer to such people is that they cannot understand books written for grown-ups. They should not talk about them." And the reality is, is that we don't know exactly what it means to have the fullness of the divine nature and what that looks like in eternity. There's been people who speculate about that. There are still people who speculate about that. But I generally go back to our canon of scripture to try and get an idea of what's most solid.

>> So how do you interpret Isaiah 43:10, that "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me"?

>> So I actually, I remember, I, I heard that verse and I remember it, it kind of troubled me until I did more research about the nature of Hebrew idioms, uh, in the Old Testament.

>> Including Psalm 82 when it says, "You are gods."

>> Um,

>> Because you take that literally.

>> Well, yeah, I, I do. But what I'm saying is that,

>> But not Isaiah 43. But, but Isaiah 43. Well, well, there's very specific scholarship that's been done on this, actually, by a Christian scholar named Michael Heiser. Um, and he points out something really interesting. He said, quote, "Saying there is no God other than the God of Israel is akin to someone from Green Bay boasting that there is no football team other than the Packers." Passages which say there is no other God, these are not statements of denial. They are boasts of incomparability. So what I want to get to here is that there are even are scriptures in the Bible such as Isaiah 47, where it says, where Babylon says, "I am, and there is no one besides me." And then again, in the book of Zephaniah, it says, "This is the city of revelry that lived in safety and said to herself, 'I am the one, and there is none besides me.'" So obviously there were other cities. What there was in that time period where there were these boasts that were being made, especially by the rulers of other nations, saying, "There is none besides me. I am so great." Right? And what the Hebrew scriptures are actually doing is they're actually playing on those words that are being said by other rulers, and they're essentially saying to them, like, they're putting their words ironically in the mouth of God to say, like, "I'm actually the greatest." Because the ancient Israelites, and, and the scholarship on this is very, very clear, they did not believe that no other gods exist. They even compared their God, Yahweh, to other deities. Like, imagine comparing God to, like, a leprechaun or something like that, would be ridiculous. So they actually did believe that there were other deities that did exist, but they believed that their God was the most high and ruler over all.

>> Okay. So you don't believe necessarily in monotheism.

>> I would say that I believe what the Bible teaches. And in the Bible, it's very clearly a henotheistic text or a monolatrist text.

>> Is there any other Christian denomination or Christian sect that believes in what you call henotheism, or I would call polytheism?

>> Well, I would say that, well, the Bible very much teaches that.

>> So, but the Mormons have it right, but we don't. The rest of the monotheistic Christians do not have it correct.

>> Even, even to call Christianity hard monotheistic, metaphysically, is a very difficult claim to justify. Um, Muslims, for example, will make that, that observation that if you want to say that you have three persons who are all fully divine beings, that all have the divine nature, you have three things, not one thing. And hard metaphysical monotheism, that must reduce to one single simple entity. And if you can't, and, and I don't see how you reconcile one single entity that is simple, with no parts, no passions, with the God of the Bible. Right. So your argument is that you agree with the Muslims. Christianity is not really monotheistic.

>> I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't say that I agree with the Muslims as much as I would agree with people like Dr. Siguad, Dr. Heiser, and others who point out that,

>> Is Dr. Heiser a polytheist?

>> No, he's a Christian. He's a Christian who actually is a Trinitarian. He actually recently passed away. He's a, he's a great Christian scholar, widely respected.

>> So that's, so that's when you say you agree with him.

>> But they don't, the term monotheism. Okay. Is,

>> But you don't agree with Michael Heiser on the Trinity?

>> I, I, well, the only thing I disagree with Michael Heiser on is that he makes an ontological difference between God and man. But Michael Heiser and I agree that the Old Testament clearly teaches the existence of multiple divine beings, with Yahweh being the most high amongst those divine beings that are called gods.

>> Did Jesus ascend to godlikeness?

>> Uh, no. I believe he descended from eternity past into humanity, went through the mortal experience, showing us how to love, so that he could ascend back to the, the place that he existed, uh, uh, previously.

>> Okay. I'm not sure if I fully understand that, that he ascended in godlikeness when he was here on earth.

>> When he came to earth, he descended. He emptied himself of the fullness of the divine nature, as Philippians talks about. So he, he came to our level to live amongst us and showed us through a perfect life and example what it means to love God and to love one another. And then through his, uh, death and resurrection, was showed us the path that we too can take to rise to, as it says, be co-heirs with him, to sit on his throne, uh, with the Father. So we read that in Philippians 2, "Though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, and being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore, you know, God highly exalted him." We also read in Hebrews 13:8 that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." We read in Colossians 1 that "by him all things were made. Without him nothing was made," which I think Mormons would also agree with.

>> And so to me, if we interpret scripture with scripture, Philippians 2 doesn't mean that he descended in godlikeness and then reasscended in godlikeness. The incarnation doesn't mean that the nature of Jesus changed. That he did have the power, as Satan tempted him with in the wilderness, to call upon the angels and to save him. He chose not to do that, even though he had the power to. He had the power to remove himself from the cross, and he chose not to do that. But the Mormon belief is that he descended not only physically and became, you know, an embryo and, uh, was embodied, but actually that he descended in his nature, in his godliness, and then recended in godlikeness to show us that we can also become gods. Quick pause to tell you about Adele Natural Cosmetics. Y'all, I use these products every day. I love what they do for my skin. Completely natural, totally holistic, no endocrine disruptors. So, no fake fragrances or synthetic ingredients. You don't have to worry about this blocking your skin or damaging your skin barrier. That's what makes Adele Natural Cosmetics so unique. Every single ingredient is so intentional. All from God's Medicine Cabinet. Arlene and her family are the real deal. They are pro-life, uh, Christians who love America, who love the Lord, and they are unapologetic in that. They make incredible makeup. All of their skincare line is so moisturizing. I use it every day. Go to adelenaturalcosmetics.com. Use code Ally. You'll get 25% off your first purchase. adelenaturalcosmetics.com, code Ally.

>> Yeah. So I, I would say that that he descended into mortality, but there isn't that, there's sort of two categories that you're creating that, that I don't believe that the Bible justifies. And that is that there is, that there is a different *genos* that God is, and then there's a *genos* that human beings are. And so when Jesus came down, he came in the form of a man. And to this day, like, you do believe that Jesus still has his body to this day, and that he, and, and, and you would agree that that body exists somewhere in a physical space, right?

>> Yes.

>> Yeah. So, and so,

>> He's at the right hand of the Father.

>> Correct. And so, and so this all, this all seems to suggest to me that like, you have God who to this day is an embodied man in Jesus Christ.

>> Okay. And so I don't, the, the, his dissension into, his condescension, his emptying himself, as Philippians says, what is he emptying himself of? He's emptying himself of the fullness of divinity to come down to where we are, where we don't have the fullness of divinity in us, to show us the path to fully realize our potential, uh, as human beings, which is to be fully, uh, be joint heirs with him, I mean, to sit on the throne, to go to return to his Father and our Father.

>> Through the Mormon church. We believe that covenant relationship is part of that because ultimately Christ established a church, and he had ordinances, and he invites, and we invite all people everywhere to come and partake in these ordinances and come into a, and to come into the fullness of the kingdom of God.

>> "As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may be." That, I know that's not in the Book of Mormon. That's just a little maxim that an LDS president came up with. "As God was, so we are." So, God himself was like us and ascended to being God.

>> I always thought the whole premise of the Christian message was that God once became a man.

>> Yes. But we're talking before the incarnation.

>> Yeah. And, and there are people that that hold to that view. I, I, um, so the, the question here is, you know, was, was God the Father once a man? There's nothing in our scriptures that, as you pointed out, that said that. You have to separate the realm, and this is what a lot of people do when dealing with LDS. They look at, sort of, theology that has been held even by presidents of our church, um,

>> who are considered prophets.

>> Correct. But we don't hold to prophetic inherency. Okay. So we don't believe that everything that a prophet ever said was right, because, you know, we could even look to, you know, Peter, who very clearly was, uh, of the opinion that the works of the law of Moses were still necessary, even after Jesus Christ. He even believed that people couldn't eat pork, for example, after the death of Jesus Christ. It wasn't until God came and revealed something to him and gave him greater light and knowledge that that teaching was corrected. So I would look at it as you have to recognize that there's a realm of that which has been revealed by God through his prophets, and those are generally where I go. And so there is a discussion amongst Latter-day Saints, just like there's discussions among many different Christian groups on different subjects, um, about the nature of the Father into eternity past.

>> Those who are distinguished and named prophets in the Bible don't get something incorrect. They don't predict something that doesn't come true. We just don't see that. They're imperfect. And I actually think that's one of the beautiful things about the Bible and why, to me, it is so trustworthy and reliable is because the writers of the Bible don't try to make themselves look better. They're just like, "This is how it was. We said something that was wrong, and it was corrected." And I think that's important. But we don't actually see that prophets from scripture, when they are saying this is a prophecy, are incorrect, or something doesn't come true. Go ahead.

>> Could I press back on that a little bit? I mean, I mean, I would see like Ezekiel predicted that Tyre would be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, but it didn't happen. Um, even Jesus, uh, in Matthew 24, and I'm not saying that Jesus got things wrong, I'm saying that maybe we don't understand what he's saying. He says, "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have been, uh, all these things have happened." And in that specific chapter, he talks about the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, which did happen in that generation, but it also said that he would, he would return in that generation. Um, and so there are many instances in the Bible where it seems as though prophecies are contingent. And so, and also, as I pointed out, to say that they never get anything wrong. Um, you know, again, I would, I would look at Peter and say it seems as though, at least to me, that Peter, uh, thought that you couldn't eat pork, for instance, for quite a while, even after the ascension of Jesus Christ. So,

>> yeah. Well, he was a human. And I don't think that we read there that he prophesied that that was true, but he had a misconception. A lot of early churches did. But in Deuteronomy 18, God says, "If the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken, and the prophet has spoken presumptuously." Um, so I do think that any word that comes from the Lord and actually comes from the Lord through a prophet has to come true in order for God to not be a liar, which I think we agree he's not.

>> And I, and I would agree. I would just, I would nuance it a little bit with the idea that there are contingencies in prophecy. Um, that the Lord, um, will, as he did with Jonah, with the city of Nineveh, um, that Jonah prophesied that the city would be destroyed, but then the Lord changed his, his course of action. Um, which is why I, I also believe that the, um, sort of metaphysical view of God's unchangeability, I don't think it's easy to square with scripture, because if God is radically unchangeable, um, then I don't know how to make sense of things like God changing his mind on the city of Nineveh.

>> Yeah, it does seem that at the same time, God is completely sovereign, that nothing catches him off guard, that nothing takes him back, that nothing, nothing surprises him, because he is suspended in the eternal now. He is not limited by time and space and on the linear timeline that we are. And yet, that is an interesting passage where he says he changes his mind. And maybe that's a colloquial phrase to help us understand that he communicated one thing to Jonah, and it was his plan all along for redemption and salvation for his people. Um, I'm not sure that that post, uh, that that supports the idea that his nature changes or that he is a changing one. Would you agree with that?

>> And I would agree. I, I don't think God's essential, uh, nature changes. I don't think that his love for us, for example, changes. Um, I believe that God will adjust according to that which is best to, to accomplish his purposes. Um, but yeah, that's, I'll leave that one there.

>> Okay. I have three more clarifying questions. Three more clarifying questions for you. Um, okay. So, there is this verse, Second Nephi. Am I pronouncing that correctly? Is it Nephi?

>> You got it.

>> Okay. 25:23. "It is by grace we are saved after all we can do." Can you clarify that?

>> Yeah, absolutely. Um, so some people think of that as, and if, especially if you go back to the language that was used in that time, um, in the 1820s when that was, was given, the idea is that it's not because of all we can do. Um, but it's actually more like, in spite of all we can do, we're saved by grace. I would, I would actually quote one of our recent apostles who gave the, a talk on the idea of the gift of grace. He says, "Grace is a gift of God, and our desire to be obedient to each of God's commandments is the reaching out of our mortal hand to receive this sacred gift from our Heavenly Father." I wonder if sometimes we misinterpret the phrase "after all we can do." Uh, and we must understand that "after" does not equal "because of." We are not saved because of all we can do. Instead, the Savior's grace allows and enables us to overcome sin. So, the idea here is, is it's not because of all we can do. It's after everything you do, Ally, it's still grace that saves you. Kind of like the analogy with the car going down the hill. Like, don't think because you took his hand that you're the one who got yourself out of the mess. It's still him who's taking you out of the mess. But you made the good choice to choose him, and that is something that is an action that contributes to your salvation.

>> Because you don't believe that he's going to scoop us out of the car if we don't reach up?

>> Well, I mean, do, do you, would you believe that God leaves some people in the car when he could save all of us, but he just...

>> I believe that we're dead in our sin apart from Christ, like Ephesians 2 says. And I don't know any dead people who have ever reached up to you. So, I, and, and maybe, and I would, I just look at that interpretation of that scripture and I, I struggle with it because of other scriptures like Joshua 24:15, where he says, "Choose ye this day whom you will serve." Deuteronomy 3:19 says, "I have set before you life and death. Therefore, choose life."

>> We don't, we don't believe that people don't have choices and they don't have responsibility and they don't have a sense of agency. But we do believe that God is completely sovereign over salvation. Now, again, that's like a Calvinist, Arminianism debate that I'm not as interested in having with you, just because I think that there are other things that we can debate about. Um, but I do think it's an, just an important distinction between what we believe, what grace accomplishes, and when it actually kicks in. I think you believe, and there are some Protestants who believe, that grace kicks in a little bit later. And I believe it kicks in earlier.

>> Well, and, and we would view it very much, well, we believe that at, in all phases, it's God's grace that's working on us. We believe that it's only through him reaching out to you. Now, you have to respond to that. We do believe that. But I, I would agree. We Latter-day Saints are not Calvinists. We side with the 97% of Christians who are not Calvinists. And we believe...

>> On that particular issue. On that, on that...

>> On that issue of belief that a Baptist Arminian will be, will have the fullness of relationship with God because they haven't gone through the Mormon church. Um, I do want to just clarify something that I remembered that when you said that God's nature changes. Malachi 3:6 says, "For I, the Lord, do not change. I do not change. Therefore, O children of Jacob are not consumed." So, I just do think it's important that God himself describes himself as unchanging. And I, I do, well, I'll give you the chance to respond because I don't want it to just be like I said that. So, you can go ahead. And then I do have two more clarifying questions.

>> So, no, I, I would agree with the idea that God doesn't change in his essential nature and love. I think we, it's a difference in interpretation. Um, and we believe that God has different things for different times. For, for example, um, in the Old Testament, it very clearly, um, says, um, "If a man lies with another man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death." Now, you believe that God doesn't want us to stone gay people to death. Um, and, you know, some people would look at that and say, well, well, that's a change. Now, I would think that God doesn't change, but that he can have certain commands for certain times and in certain contexts. And so, what may look like a change isn't actually a change in his essential nature.

>> Well, Jesus fulfilled the law. And so, that's what we know of Jesus, that he became our cleansing. He became our reconciliation. The whole book of Galatians is saying, look, if you're trying to abide by any one law for your salvation, you better be ready to abide by all of them, because perfection is the only thing that God accepts. So, you can try to do it through perfectly keeping the law, which none of you could ever do, correct? Or you could do it through Christ, who has fulfilled the law and has died for your sins in accordance with the prophecies in the scriptures. And so, it's not that God changed. It's that Jesus fulfilled the law. It's not that, well, God sees homosexuality different. I don't believe he does see homosexuality different. Times change. We change. Yes, cultures change. We are not ancient Israel. We are not governed by the same theocratic law that we were before. It's not God who changed. I don't think that he sees homosexuality as any less of an abomination. But Jesus came, he fulfilled the law. He gave us a new dictate. Same God, new dictate. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." So, we're not under the same dictate. That doesn't mean the nature of God changed. I mean, do you believe God has changed when it comes to homosexuality?

>> No. I, I, I would say, I would say that God definitely has, has a, um, God's nature does not change, but the circumstances under which he's dealing with us,

>> we change.

>> We change.

>> We change.

>> And so he has,

>> But God doesn't change.

>> You're right. In his essential nature, but sometimes people can look at that and think that it's God changing when it isn't.

>> But you're saying that he changes.

>> No, I don't, I don't believe I would say...

>> He doesn't change in his essential nature, which seems to mean that he changes in some way.

>> Well, well, he very clearly changed his mind about the destruction of Nineveh.

>> Yeah, we talked about that. But I don't actually believe that it is possible for God to be controlled by a linear set of circumstances.

>> Well, are there, I mean, there are multiple times in scripture where God seems to be in a genuine relationship and a give and take with a people. For example, Jesus looks over the city of Jerusalem and he says, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often I would have gathered thee as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not."

>> So the idea here is, is that there's a cooperation that needs to happen between God and man. He will extend his hand,

>> but that we need to take it.

>> And when, when someone fails, it isn't because God abandoned them. It's because they chose not to take the hand that was offered.

>> Yeah. We have this, um, idea, theological idea, which maybe you do too, of concurrence, where God is completely sovereign, that he's completely powerful. There's not something I can do to stop God from doing what he sets out to do. But at the same time, which is kind of strange, and this quandary is really explained in Romans 9, and even Paul himself is like, we just kind of have to glorify God for his sovereignty and his wisdom and understanding. At the same time, we do have a responsibility. We do have consequences. We do have agency. We have choices that we are going to make. At the same time, he makes vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy. And then you have people, as Paul said in Romans 9, "But how can a potter, or how can clay say to the potter, 'Why did you make me this way?'" And so, we've dealt for a long time with the seeming injustice of God's sovereignty and yet our responsibility. And we have to reconcile that with Ephesians 1, where it says, "In love he predestined us for adoption as sons." Romans 8, which you represented, or which you articulated earlier, that "those who were predestined he also called. Those he called he also equipped. Those he equipped he also glorified." And so, yeah, we can go into a predestination debate maybe like another time.

>> Well, obviously we have a, we have a different interpretation of, of Romans 9. But yeah.

>> And Romans 8 and Ephesians 1 and Ephesians 2. We have a different interpretation of a lot of things. Um, but you can answer, and if you, or if you just want me to ask my last two questions, I can.

>> I would just say the, the, the only thing I would say on the Romans 9 stuff, uh, because I actually just was recently studying this in quite a bit, is that it's a, that chapter is actually a meditation on the house of Israel.

>> Yeah, I've heard this.

>> At that time, um, the gospel is being spread to the Gentiles, and there was sort of this idea that Paul is looking at the, the chosen people, the Jews, and he is saying, uh, and there's sort of a complaint like, well, why is, like, why is the covenant being expanded outside of, of this group of people? And so we would look at, at that chapter through the lens of it's talking about corporate and groups of people,

>> not individuals.

>> Not individuals.

>> So, "In love he predestined us for adoption as sons." Ephesians 1:5. So, predestined, I, I would use it in this sense. Imagine there's two planes, and from the beginning of the world, God has ordained these two planes to go to the best location, and the other one's going to the worst location. And, and if, if Paul and, and that is predestined to go there, the question is just who's going to actually get on the plane. So when I look at that,

>> God doesn't know.

>> Well, I would say no. No, I would say that, imagine that what Peter is doing, or Paul, Paul is as if he's on at the front of the plane and he's addressing everyone in the plane and he's saying, "Brothers, like, this has all been predestined for us to go." So it isn't about individuals. It's the predestination or God's intention.

>> Does God know the individuals?

>> Does God know the individual?

>> Does he know the individuals that are going to get on the plane?

>> Uh, I would say, and this is, I'm going to give my church has a, it's kind of like within, within the Christians, how there's, there's different views on God's foreknowledge. I personally believe...

>> To my Christians?

>> Well, I would say amongst, let's just say amongst creedal Christians, amongst creedal Christians, there are discussions about the nature of God's foreknowledge. And amongst Latter-day Saints, there also are discussions about that. And to a certain extent, I'm not comfortable enough with the position that I have to argue for it, and so I'll kind of leave that one in the...

>> Position we don't know if God knows everything, or you don't know if God knows everything?

>> The question is, is does him knowing something cause that thing to happen? Or are people genuinely free? But he knows. Like, for example, I may know that if I put my child in a room with a cookie and they're hungry, that they're going to eat that cookie, but I didn't make my child eat the cookie.

>> That's, and so, and so that is, so there's a, there is a question about, uh, the nature of foreknowledge as it relates to causality.

>> Yes. And I would say that's a different question. But you can't tell me if God is all-knowing.

>> I would say he is as all-knowing as it is possible to know. So, as much as can be known, he knows.

>> So does he know who's going to be saved and who's not going to be saved? Does he know who's going to, in your terms, get on that plane?

>> That is a debatable question that I don't know that I'm ready to to answer because I know...

>> No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that that is a question that is debated even amongst Latter-day Saints and amongst creedal Christians. Um, and I, I don't feel qualified to debate that topic because I don't know it well enough.

>> Okay. Um, two other questions, maybe only one. We're over time, but that's okay. It's super fun and I hope people have fun listening to it and watching it.

>> This is

I hope that this doesn't come across as silly. I think this is a genuine Mormon belief. Do Mormons believe that Jesus's return will be to Independence, Missouri?

Um, yes. In essence, that's outside of Branson. We would I would but I would I mean I think it's it kind of has a shock value because it's sort of like well okay why if if he's going to return to somewhere else now grant I would say he's going to return he is going to return to the earth and we believe that uh or at least it was prophesied that the American continent would be where kind of the fullness of his kingdom would be established.

Prophesied not in the Bible. Well, you're right. But I would say that and I would say though that um because I also believe that prophecies are conditional. I don't necessarily believe that that any prophecy that's been made is necessarily set in stone because as we've seen in the Bible with Nineveh and with Ty and I believe even with the prediction of Jesus coming during the first generation of the disciples which are all in scripture that conditions can change. And so I believe that that that prophecy was made, but I don't I don't claim to know exactly the way that things are going to shake out in the end because conditions change.

Okay. Um my last clarifying question, does the Mormon church teach that wives that they have a secret name that is given to them in the temple and at the resurrection their husband who is the only one who knows that name will call upon them to go to heaven.

So this gets a little bit into our temple liturgy which and so the temple liturgy is something that is um symbolic in nature. Okay. So um there are and and in any lurggical process there's a question of how much of this is literal and how much of this is is uh is figurative. Right? And so within the temple liturgy there is a an idea that there is uh that a husband will participate in the bringing forth of their family and even other members of the family for that matter uh in in the resurrection. So that is that is something that exists within our theology. Now to be honest I'm not an expert in that subject really. Um but I will say that I know enough that uh within the temple symbolism uh and the symbolism of that liturgy that that yes there is a notion that that we will participate in the coming forth of of those who we love.

Okay. So wives uh w men hold the the priesthood. So this is something that again even in Christ church even in the Old Testament like the men were the ones who held certain sort of priestly offices for a particular purpose that God has. And as the resurrection is seen at least within uh LDS thought uh to be uh something that involves the priesthood that that yes that a a husband would be involved in in the helping to bring forth of of their family.

How do you interpret Matthew 22:30 where for in the resurrection no one will be married? You won't get married. You won't be given in marriage.

If you look at if you look at the verse actually uh specifically it says that none will be married or given in marriage.

Okay. So you believe that pre-existing marriages pre-existing marriages there are no no marriages that will exist after the time of the resurrection. There will no no new marriages will be performed at that point. If you look at the verse that's it doesn't say that no one in heaven will be married. do believe that you and your husband will still be a married couple in heaven if you so want to be.

Well, the context of the passage though is the Pharisees, right? Trying to trap him about marriage.

The Sadducees. The Sadducees, thank you so much for correcting that does matter. It's a small distinction, but it does matter.

It does because they didn't believe in the resurrection, right? Yes. So, that's important. And so, they were trying to trap him about marriage. And then in another part like Matthew 19, he's asking um the Pharisees, I believe in Matthew 19 are the ones asking, you know, who who are we going to be married to? Who are we going to be married to in heaven if someone gets married multiple times? And that's how Jesus answers. So I think that's why if I'm not incorrect, that would be why so many Christians say, "Well, marriage must not the earthly institution of marriage must not be recognized in the resurrection."

Yeah. And I've always I you know it's funny. I've I've thought a lot about that sort of a view. And to me I've had a hard time understanding what marriage's purpose is if it's just for this life. You know I understand the necessary to bring forth children into a family and stuff but but the idea that the family structure disintegrates at death and that people aren't ultimately still like will my wife still be my wife? Will my father still be my father? The LDS conception is that the same sociality that exists amongst us here will exist amongst us on the other side but with a greater degree of glory.

Yeah. Jesus is answering this question from the Sadducees specifically about people who have multiple wives here on earth not together but in succession. And that's how he answers they won't marry nor are they given in marriage. So actually in context it doesn't seem like it's new marriages. They're talking because they're asking him about previous marriages and current marriages not new marriages. They're not saying, "Hey, will we get married one day?" They're saying, "What if you've already been married multiple times?" That's how he answers. So, actually, in context, it doesn't seem to be talking about new marriages. Just to clarify that.

Well, and I and I would look at it and Jesus answered them, this is the specific words, and said, "You heir not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection, they neither marry." Now, this is interesting, too, because the context is being used here. They neither marry. So, in the resurrection, men were the ones who married. And then it's talking about women, nor are they given in marriage. Okay, but these are but they are as the gods of heaven. So they're talking about who is he going to be married to in the resurrection. And the just so you know the position of our church, the position of of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that no one in the next life will have any familial relationships that they don't want. They won't be coerced into anything. And we don't claim to know exactly the way that all these things will shake out in every instance. Uh but we do believe that our families can be together forever.

Okay. Um let's just end on this uh last clarifying note so that people understand. We have so much of the same language. Can you share what you believe the good news of the gospel to be?

Absolutely. The good news of the gospel is for all mankind, not just the elect. Uh it is that Jesus Christ came to this earth. He died for your sins and he offers you his hand, the gift of grace to come into full relationship with him to be reconciled to God to overcome the fallen world that we're in. The reality is whether you're an atheist or whether you're a Latter-day Saint or whoever you are, we all have to agree that we live in a fallen world. It's broken. We are broken. It's unfair. It's unjust. And the only question is is there a way out? What Christ's atonement represents and what Easter mourning represents when he walked out of that tomb was that there's hope and that there is good news that he overcame death that he overcame sin. And my belief as a Latter-day Saint and my testimony is that Christ is our savior. That he loves every one of us and that he offers you a totally new life through him. And I believe that with all my heart and I we often in our tradition say that we leave our testimonies in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

And it's so close because I believe that. But in your belief system, I don't have in eternity. If I die as I believe now, if I believe all of that, I don't get eternal communion with God. It's not enough to you.

Well, in our view, you would get as much communion with God as you're willing to accept. And what we are offering in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that people come and participate in a uh in the ordinances of the holy priesthood of God which have been restored to the earth that allow for men to act as his agents on earth to organize his kingdom and to bring those who believe in Jesus Christ and seek to follow him into full communion with one another in his church so that we can build his kingdom on earth in preparation for his second coming.

Okay, here's what I would say which I believe is better news. That by grace you have been saved through faith and this is not your own doing. That Christ's death, his sacrifice for you on the cross is enough for you to have fullness of your relationship with God both here and in heaven. That there is no other name by which one can be saved. That's Acts 4:12. And that according to Hebrews, Jesus paid the sacrifice once and for all so that you could have access to God forever. There aren't three levels of heaven. There is full relationship with God. And there is there is hell. Those are the two options. And thankfully in scripture, we're not given this very like arbitrary and slippery, well, you can be bad. What is really bad? No, it's in Christ or out of Christ. It's dead and sin are made alive in Christ. And the good news is is that death that Jesus's death and resurrection is enough for you to have relationship with God and to spend forever in his presence. That is the really good news. And I think that's true no matter what your background is. That is the fullness of the gospel. And I just wanted to make sure that we distinguish that. Thank you so much.

Thank you.